[2muchcoffeeman]

The problem with engaging with everybody that has an idea is that we don't have the resources to do so.

This was actually discussed in an episode of the Scientific American podcast. I can't find the episode, but they mentioned that they would need a member of staff working full time to reply to and debunk all the crack pot theories.

What's more important, staff doing research and teaching or answering crack pots that cannot be persuaded?

[pygy_]

I know that. You don't need to engage with the authors, but assessing some of the papers once in a while may not hurt either.

In the abstract of this paper, they claim that they have experimental support for their theory. This is enough to lower my guard, and make me want to know if 1) they indeed do and 2) they bring something novel on the table.

The explanation given by phys.org sounds like it could make some sense (even though they are most probably beating an old misconception like a dead horse).

That's why I wouldn't mind if a physicist was kind enough to skim and debunk or validate the paper beyond simply bashing the authors.

[xyzzyz]

That's why I wouldn't mind if a physicist was kind enough to skim and debunk or validate the paper beyond simply bashing the authors.

So hire one and pay him to do it. What do you think a physicist will rather do, read a paper published in a reputable journal that is highly likely to teach him something new, or paper that is enormously unlikely to be something else than crackpot theories?

Have there ever been any actual progress in physics coming from someone without academic credentials and/or published in crackpot journal, hm?